Laserfiche WebLink
Canepa's Car Wash (Pacific Avenue) <br /> Problem Assessnrent Report and Corrective Action Plan <br /> Pagc I 1 <br /> 8- hour time- weighted average recommended limit of 0325 mghn' . However, according to the sofrivare, <br /> this also would produce an individual cancer risk of 2 . 0 in 10,000, greater than the target level of one in <br /> one million . Outdoor air exposures were two orders of magnitude lower. The complete software printout <br /> IS included as Appendix B. <br /> 7. 0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN <br /> 7. 1 DESCRIPTION OF CORRECTIVE AC'T'ION STRATEGIES <br /> Evaluation of the remedial alternatives for soil and groundwater at the site is complicated because of <br /> saturation of the contaminated soil by the 20-foot rise in the elevation of the water table, Although it is <br /> apparent from the available data that a large but unknown mass of volatile organic compound was <br /> removed by the soil vapor extraction system, significant VOCs remain in the saturated soil . The remedial <br /> alternatives are limited by the site use constraints. Due to the depth of the soil contamination (below the <br /> groundwater, more that 30 feet deep) excavation and ex situ treatment of the soil is not possible. Also, <br /> because of the urban location and congested use of the site, very little space is available for ex situ <br /> treatment units. <br /> Additionally, the soil vapor extraction system currently in place has removed a significant portion of the <br /> soil vapor contamination above the groundwater, but it is not capable of efficient VOCs removal from the <br /> soil below the groundwater. Continued operation of the system as a sole remediation alternative is not a <br /> feasible remedial alternative. <br /> Based on the contaminants of concern and the limitations noted, the following alternatives have been <br /> considered: <br /> 1. In sitar attenuation through passive biodegradation; <br /> 2. Enhanced in situ bioremediation and/or chemical oxidation; <br /> 3. Soil Vapor Extraction; <br /> 4. Air Sparging; <br /> 6. Ex situ groundwater treatment (pump and treat); and <br /> 6. Combinations of Alternatives 2 through 5 . <br /> Alternative I , in situ attenuation through passive biodegradation, would rely on natural biodegradation of <br /> the volatile organic compounds in the soil and water. Conceptually, thenativebacteria would rely on the <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons for their carbon source and the nutrients and oxygen dissolved in the <br /> groundwater to enhance the bacterial activity. There is evidence for active biodegradation in the area of <br /> soil borings SB- 1 and SB-2 prior to saturation of the soil by the rising water table. Biological activity <br /> with limited availability of oxygen in the soil is suggested by the olive-gray and blue-gray soil colors, <br /> indicating that the oxygen necessary to sustain the biological activity was derived from reduction of oxide <br /> minerals . The time required to achieve acceptable water quality cannot be estimated and there would be <br /> no down-gradient containment of the plume; however, costs would be limited to those for groundwater <br /> monitoring and monitoring for natural attenuation. <br /> Alternative 2, enhanced in situ bioremediation and/or chemical oxidation, would augment the natural <br /> biodegradation discussed above. Augmentation can involve nutrients, specially developed microbes, <br /> and/or electron acceptors (oxygen being the most common electron acceptor). It is likely, based on the <br /> length of time the contamination has been present in the subsurface, that microbes adapted to the <br /> environment and contamination have sufficiently developed. However, nutrient or oxygen addition could <br /> accelerate the microbial _ activity. Nutrient addition would require an analysis of nutrient deficiencies (if <br /> 1 � <br /> A <br /> LJ CONDOR <br />